Thats my point though. If the carpeting is is already lightweight, how much more lightweight can it get while also not diminishing the luxury aspect of it by allowing too much sound into the cabin?
Furthermore, the M division went through so much time, effort and work to make the current M3 as light as possible and it still ended up being heavy.
I know about the CF manuf plant but again, how much more weight is that going to save over the aluminum hood on the car now? 5 lbs?
At the same time, the 3 series is going to be bigger, wider, and more tech will be added. Those all add weight.
I realize they are getting more serious, but until I truly see it, I dont believe it. Not sure if you know, but Porsche cut 408 lbs out of the new Cayenne Turbo vs the outgoing model and most of the rest of their cars have remained relatively in check or have gotten lighter in a few instances. Those are the types of serious weight reduction steps I like to see. BMW said the new 5 series was going to be lighter, yet its heavier across the entire line-up. Not sure if its just lip service, but it hasnt held true yet.

Hmmm, I strongly disagreed with you and now you say "that's my point"? The items in the OP as well as some of the others I've added just above are some of many that will be contributing to the weight management effort in the new M3. I don't have a crystal ball and don't know the weight yet. I can though guarantee it will be taken even more seriously in the next gen car.

As far as weight management in the existing M3: The team did what they had, at the development budget they had to bring the car to the market at the intended price while as the same time besting all of its competitors. To think that means there is not a lot room left for more reductions is silly.

I agree, we're not going to see an N55 or variant thereof on the new M3 (which is still 3(?) years away??)

BMW is known for innovation and creating great engines, they're not going to keep re-using the same motor (basically an N54 that lost a turbo, became an N55, now the 1-M is using a variant thereof, etc.) Not going to happen. Thank God.

I'm pretty confident (based on trends, competition, specs, etc.) that the new M3 will have:

BMW has the upper hand in competing with the AMG TT V8 (this motor is here for another 4-5 years and we have NO idea what the BMW M motor will hold, so that's really good).

Also, it's really NOT about efficiency, being green and all that other bullshit when it comes to M cars guys. Think about this: BMW has sold about 17,000 M3s (all variants) to date and they closed the M5 production line with about 22,000 units sold. This is NOTHING, peanuts. ((BMW sells about 200,000 cars per year in the US alone).

These cars are very laser targeted towards us and other "enthusiasts," times are tough, people can barely justify a $300 / month car from Ford, Toyota, etc. We're dropping $1,000+ / month on these cars. They're going to make us happy, as they always have.

The C-Class AMG is pushing 475 horsepower, a boatload of torque and be in no doubt that the new M3 will smash all over that car.

The new M3 is still farrrrrr away, so who knows what the future holds, but I do know one thing with pure certainty:

It will be BETTER than the current E9x M3, which as we all know, is truly on amazing car.

Ladies and Gentlemen....it doesn't get any more well put that this....bang on IMO

We shall see. Another reason I dont see them working all of this into a 'base' car is because if they build another CSL/GTS version thats where Im sure they will try to employ all of these things.
I just find it difficult to believe weight will go down knowing that all other cars have still gotten bigger, and the 3 series is likely to follow suit getting larger in all dimensions.

The hints at more hardcore production versions of the M3 are great indeed. Those cars will certainly have more power and less weight than the regular M3 model. Sure it is sometimes hard to imagine where the weight will come from but no matter what the cost and what weight a car is at, a production car always has some wiggle room on weight, be it an M3, future generation M3, M3 CSL, whatever. With a model like the CSL obvious ideas are full rear seat removal and further NVH package reductions since more noise is acceptable in such a car. CC brakes is another good guess and at the likely price of a CSL those are entirely within such a hypothetical cars budget.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shift@red

As far as budget for the F30, whos to say the budget has gotten bigger? Its known they are looking to cut costs, which is why they are using engines already employed in other non M cars...so I would tend to believe the budget was smaller rather than bigger.

I was not commenting on the relative size of any 3er nor M3 budget in particular. I was simply pointing out that the weight management efforts in the M3 were not tremendous, they had a weight target and cost target and likely met both.

Well done swamp2!
I think the purpose of your work is achieved. That is to make people on the forum actively discuss the argument. I also like the bracketing stuff. Finally someone who doesn't pull out exact numbers predicting future with some crystal ball...
I also agree the V8 in the M3 will die with the current M3 and speculations about a V6 are nothing less than absurd. A V6 form a company with the longest I6 heritage in the world?? It's since 1917 they've been building them! It will be ether a heavily revised N54-55 or a new I6 multi-turbo engine IMO.

I'll qualify one more time and say the relationship applies within categories; comparisons with the x series or luxury models aren't relevant.

When you put enough qualifiers on it, sure, it becomes a more-or-less true statement, but there will still be plenty of exceptions. E90 M3 easily out accelerates the E60 550i that was on the market at the same time, for example. A 128i will beat a 328i will beat a 528i. An ML63 while outrun a G55. Mustang GT will beat a Taurus SHO. Etc, etc, etc.

In the end there is little practical use in the observation that there may be some rough correlation between 0-60 time and price when you place arbitrarily constraints on the sample data set. The rule doesn't always hold, and at any time a new product can arrive and break the rule. Trying to predict the price of an upcoming product based on its reported specs is basically a losing battle. There are more valuable indicators such as its competitors pricing and the price of the previous generation model (if one exists) and probably other better ones.

Quote:

4 seconds is still 'super car' territory and will not be a target performance goal for the next M3 given what is acceptable in the expected price range and competitive set. And although not a defined goal, I do think that BMW will take the opportunity to charge more than planned if a sub 4 second benchmark is achieved.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree on that one. There's simply no way they are hinging the price on a couple tenths here or there. They will price the car where they need to in order to meet the sale goals laid out in the original business case. They will balance the tune of the car to meet the performance goals while factoring in emissions, efficiency (and thus CAFE) and other limiting factors that effect costs.

Quote:

Like I said, 0-60 and price are not necessarily explicitly causal but they are correlated (within categories).

Your categories are arbitrary.

Quote:

A different thought is that the next m3 will get performance very similar to the e60 m5. It's like we're one performance generation removed from the big brother in the line up.

When you genericize the discussion from 0-60 times to mere performance in general I definitely have to disagree. The E9x M3 in many ways bests or matches the E60 M5 already, for example track with many times such as the Ring. It is slower to 60 on paper, and the M5 does have a slightly higher power-to-weight ratio. But in other metrics the M3 is in front.

__________________

A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.

They can no longer make a limited model like the E46 GTR V8, as the rules do not allow it.

The rules will specify some mimimum number of production cars that must be built using a version of the engine in the race car. BMW will simply meet that minimum, probably in a car not unlike todays GTS.

Another possibility is that they will just run the turbo 6 from the standard car in the race car. Engines are trending toward FI in some race series such as Indycar and even F1 is being urged to switch to turbo I4. I'm not sure of the rules for ALMS or Le Mans but I could easily see them allowing FI in the GT class soon if they don't already.

Slightly off topic, but I always wondered this about fuel economy. Since the main driving reason for BMW is to be green, I thought I'd ask this question here. Forgive my lack of knowledge.

A V8 engine is two I4 engines bolted together in V shape. Could it be possible to use only one of the I4 banks for let say cruising? If possible, I think that'll be 'green'. We'd have the full V8 for normal usage. And manually or automatically (which can even be programmed in to M drive), we can switch to single I4 mode for high way cruising...

Yes, GM and Chrysler already employ this technique on some of the V8s. It is easier to engineer on a pushrod motor because of the level of indirection between the cam and the valves, and the available space to work with since the cam is in the black. But it could be done with OHC engines as well (I am sure prototypes exist). The thing is the gain in efficiency isn't as high as you might expect, mainly because you end up with so much rotating mass that isn't contributing to the power output. A better idea might be to literally place two I4's in tandem (joined by a differential) and just shut one down completely. But the costs would skyrocket on that, and plus the packaging would probably be nightmare.

__________________

A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.

In my mind, I feel that going with a TT 6 cylinder doesn't make sense at least long term. If BMW decided to use a "detuned" version of the TT 8 cylinder used the M5, X5, and X6 variants, this would allow them to easily make the power they want with plenty of room for them to grow. Additionally, I would think they would gain more reliability as they aren't pushing to the extreme a 6 cylinder and then having little room to grow. A TT 8 cylinder would allow them to meet their number for the next generation or even 2 generations.

The downsides of the 8 cylinder are perhaps weights and definitely mileage.

It s interesting to see how they' ll use the CF parts in saving weight
My guess is that we'll see 2 versions of the next gen M3: a "luxury" one at the begining and a more stripped one after about 2 years (a more track oriented).
I think this is the route they should follow, as Porsche has the 911 range.

I think we still cannot know for sure. The argument that a 3.5l I6 TT N55 will not be able to rev high is quite important. Before there were rumours of S63 with two cylinders less, so a 3.3l V6? The problem is that is would be at 90°, and that the turbos would be in the vee, what is not the best thing for a car like M3. The other solution is the 6.0l V12 of the 760i F01. So cut the engine in two to get a 3.0l V6 60° with the turbos outside, but now is the V12 basis M worthy? If the M3's engine really bases on the N55, it will be a true M engine, eventhough turbo, because it will have to undergo ALOT of modifications.
Now to the weight, the new BMW's did not get weight reduction, but just less weight growth. Only the X3 is 30 kg lighter than the previous generation. In this way we can expect the 3 Series F3X to get about 50 kg lighter. This would mean a 335i F30 would weight 1550 kg (EU) compared to todays 335i E90 that weighs 1600 kg (EU). If the M3 F32 is based on a TT I6, and not a havier NA V8, it will weigh 1550 kg (EU), what is 100 kg less than todays M3 E92, and it would be slightly less than the previous M3 E46. Yet I doubt if the weight difference of the engine it that significant:
N54: 188 kg
N55: 184 kg
S65: 204 kg
I expect S55 to be about 185-190 kg. Will this change much?
Now, there was an M5 CSL that made the N-Ring in 7:50 min. I expect to M5 F10 to make the N-Ring in less than 8:00 min, to come closer/beat the Panamera and the CTS-V, that so to say put the benchmark of the fastest sedan.The todays M5 E60 make the N-Ring in 8:12 min, and the M6 in 8:06 min. If to follow this that the M6 is about 5 sec faster, than the M6 F12 will make the Ring closer to 7:55 min. And as the M3 E92 is faster than M6 E63, so the M3 F32 will be faster and might do the Ring under 7:55 min, closer to the time of the M3 CSL E46 and Carrera S 997.
The M3 CSL/GTS (I would prefere CSL), could then lose another 50 to 75 kg and so weigh about 1500 kg (EU), that would be 1425 kg (DIN). For reference the 911 GT3 RS weighs 1380 kg (DIN). This M3 GTS/CSL might do the Ring under 7:30 min:
M3 CSL E46: 7:50 min
M3 GTS E92: 7:40 min
M3 CSL/GTS F32: 7:30 min
Now it is an impressive time, but till that day, we'll have the new McLaren MP4-12C, new 911 (998), new Gallardo, 458 Scuderia and so on, so the time will be close to 7:15 min, the new benchmark, 7:18 set by the 911 GT2 RS (997).
If M get the right engine in the M3 F32 is will be a very good car for sure. About looks, it is also very positiv, when you look at the new interiors, 5 Series F10, 6 Series F13, Z4 E89, and outside it is also so, 1 Series M is has very nice aggressive design cues.

There's been much agreement and disagreement in this thread, but it all seems rooted in one major aspect of the next model -- motor -- with weight being the other repeatedly raised aspect.

Unless BMW has changed it way of doing business in the last few years, money and costs still decide what models will be built and for how many customers that have what type of automobilistic tastes and preferences. So, from the outside attempting to peer in, there isn't much hope of glimpsing what is actually going among the players that ultimately decide which of what is included in the next model. However, rather than "What is possible?", perhaps a "What isn't possible?", as in "cost ineffective/prohibitive", or "What is permissible due to this that and the other?" may be a another way to spend time.

We are likely to all agree that the next M3 will improve in the above three areas.

The following "unknowns" are so in the sense that we do not know how each interplays with the others nor do we have any real idea as to the extent any will influence decision-making by M design team, neither do we know what guidance the BMW/ M management has offered to the design team, and we certainly have no idea as to preferences of any individual members of the design team (They don't hold press conferences nor hold court in Internet forums/chat rooms.) nor the overarching financial philosophy of management that will financially enable or limit the boundaries of the model.

Specific Unknowns

- Additional per unit cost to reduce weight by lb or kg

- The extent that the law of diminishing marginal returns factors into unit production cost where weight reducing parts are incorporated to the model.

- Additional per unit cost to develop blank sheet motor.

- Marginal savings per unit by foregoing a blank sheet motor development plan in favor of modifying existing N-type motor.

- Total generation unit sales target.

Additional limiting or compelling factors

- Other BMW/M model price points

- M3 price range

- BMW M5 performance

- BMW 1M role i.e Is it envisioned to be a model that BMW wants 1M owners to see as logically leading them to the “next step” M3?

- Market competition: What is the fifth generation M3’s competition?

- What are to be the distinguishing aspects of the M3 that make it compelling versus targeted competition?

*** If there is someone out there with insider status that could address the unknowns, please know that many of us here would greatly appreciate you doing so.

I have no reason to doubt the turbo variation of the next M3 will be as good as it gets for the year it debuts. In all honesty, I cared a lot that they were losing the non-FI V8 but with how horrid the renders are looking, I just hope they do something about the exterior and interior styling. Until then, they can put a 500hp V10 and I still won't care. Actually, a v10 trumps bad styling, but a TT I-6 doesn't

The rules will specify some mimimum number of production cars that must be built using a version of the engine in the race car. BMW will simply meet that minimum, probably in a car not unlike todays GTS.

Another possibility is that they will just run the turbo 6 from the standard car in the race car. Engines are trending toward FI in some race series such as Indycar and even F1 is being urged to switch to turbo I4. I'm not sure of the rules for ALMS or Le Mans but I could easily see them allowing FI in the GT class soon if they don't already.

ALMS rules state the road car must have 100 units and 1,000 engines produced.

I believe they intend to pull out of Le Mans racing when the E9x M3 runs its course. It won't be the first time they take a break from endurance racing.

SCOTT already said the launch year is 2014, so add a year to both of your guesses.

Does a 2014 calendar year launch = 2015 model year car? If so, does that mean the "not produced" model year will be the 2014? And if so, that would mean we still have two more model years -- 2012 & 2013 -- of E92 M3 production, right? I could live with that.

In some way the new Porsche 911 (991) will be the new M3 rival, and a very, very tough one. Plus to benchmark performance (straight line) and handling (curves), it will be the best looking 911 ever, the most refined, and a very good daily driver. Then 3 months after the M3 F32 release, there comes the new C AMG, powered by a new ~3.5l V6 Comprex Supercharger. The RS4 will get an upgraded version of the 3.0l V6 TFSI (supercharged), larger displacement is possible, as we saw with the the new Audi W12.

What is sure, is that BMW M has to work very hard on the new M3 F32, and NOT think to much about costs, as they did with the 1SMC, because now, the M3 is loosing its value, due to very tough rivals (C 63 AMG, RS5, IS-F,...). VW may also bring out a new Passat R, powered by Audi S4 engine. And I am also thinking about a new Jaguar that will replace the S-Type (XS?), and its sport model (XS-R?), as the XF-R rivals the M5.
I think the M3 has to focus on cars such as 911, R8, in other words the supercars.
RS4/RS5, C AMG, IS-F, XS-R,... < M3 < 911, R8, R4?, SLS, SLS Baby?, Lambo, Ferrari,...

If M does a mistake with the M3 F32, it is all over for M, and so for BMW, even with BMW i and MINI.

Does a 2014 calendar year launch = 2015 model year car? If so, does that mean the "not produced" model year will be the 2014? And if so, that would mean we still have two more model years -- 2012 & 2013 -- of E92 M3 production, right? I could live with that.

Yes. It is so. In general, now BMW's are produced 7 years and get facelift after 3 1/2 years. As the M models come 2 years later, they are produced 5 years. The M3 GTS for example did not come at the end of M3 E9X generation, but just at facelift, so after 2 years. There are yet three years until the new M3 comes, the actual one will yet be produced until the new 3 Series Coupé comes, even if there is already the new 3 Series Sedan, unless BMW changed its way of doing things, what I doubt.